Category Archives: Politics

Why we DON’T want to vote for Democrats, even if we don’t vote for Republicans

Constitution, Politics

Warbs asks “Why did I vote for you?” to the president and the republican party in general.

Why indeed, when they seem to be busily engaging in an orgy of self congratulation, cluelessness and fiscal excess not seen since Roman times.

an extended quotation:

“Let’s run down the laundry list of what Bush has done to screw up so far:

* Signed a blatantly unconstitutional campaign finance bill
* Increased federal government intrusion into education— without corresponding improvements like vouchers
* Created a bloated new medicare drug entitlement— all the while hiding its true estimated costs
* Threatened veto after veto, without following through on a single one
* Comported his entire administration as if it were a monarchy
* Supported the Patriot Act & domestic wiretapping— dramatically increasing the police power of the state
* Failed to respond to Katrina, one of the greatest natural disasters in recent history
* Imprisoned Americans without trial, counsel, judicial oversight, or even a hearing

That’s not even addressing Iraq, which is a whole different debate.

As Bartlett points out, Bush is the “conservative” president who said “We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move.”

Contrast that with Ronald Reagan: “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

George W. Bush has been described as a “big-government conservative”. Bush’s idea of government is that it doesn’t work, except when he’s holding the reins. His presidency, however, is better described by PJ O’Rourke: “The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.”

Bush could have been defeated in 2004. In many ways, I wish he would have. Not by Kerry, of course. I don’t see how the Democrats could have their fingers so far from the pulse that they nominated so uncharismatic and vacillating that he couldn’t beat a weak Bush. If the Democrats had nominated someone who had come out with an understanding of at least finishing the job in Iraq, I would have voted for him.

With a pro-war Democrat in office, we might have had a chance at Bush’s only redeeming quality, coupled with the best feature of Clinton’s final 6 years: gridlock. We might have seen the Republican Congress start acting like Republicans, fighting spending. Instead, we’ve been stuck with a Congress who wants to send pork back home, coupled with a president too scared to rebuke members of his own party. Republicans have all three branches of government locked up, and they spend their time trying to act like Democrats. What’s worse? They have such little experience administering and creating welfare programs, that they’ve screwed up every attempt at doing so (i.e. Medicare Part D). It’s gotten so bad, that I DON’T EVEN WANT Social Security privatization if it comes from this batch of Republicans, because I know they’ll be serving the needs of investment bankers, not me.

The last several years have seen complete mismanagement of government. Just as PJ O’Rourke predicted. 2006 and 2008 are going to be a big wake-up call for the Republican party, and I, for one, think it’s about damn time.”

So why did Bush get re-elected then?

Well, how about the fact that Kerry was nearly the worst possible candidate? How about the fact that the democrats didn’t particularly WANT Kerry (or any other dem candidate who presented themselves) to win?

I’m not saying they deliberately threw the election, it’s just that the dems didnt particularly want to win in 2004; much like the republicans in nominating Bob Dole in ‘96. Sure they knew Dole was going to lose, hell they knew ANY republican was going to lose; so why not give Dole his last shot, and lets make sure that Clinton is around to boner up everything and increase the republican majority.

The Dems wanted the same thing, and it looks like they may get it. What they wanted, was to improve their congressional position, because it is the house of representatives contingent that actually controls the democratic party (along with their “fringe” donor element). The best thing for the democratic congressional contingent has been the hostile to republicans press, and G.W.B. as president.

The congresscritters knew Kerry was a loser, after all they worked with the guy (he was one of my senators much of my life and I certainly knew). They also knew that he would be horrible for them in the mid terms if he won.

Did they throw it? No, they just picked the worst candidate from the field (welllll, other than Dean or Kucinich) , counted on him to lose, and counted on GW to make a huge ass of himself after the election (which he did like clockwork); thus improve their position for the midterms, and making it easier to put someone they actually want to get behind with full effort in for ‘08.

That said, honestly, I think if the republicans put up any halfway acceptable candidate, the “I will not vote for a democrat for president until this war is won” demographic will be enough to keep the presidency in Republican hands.

I’m a dedicated libertarian minarchist, and I’ll be voting with that demographic, because giving the reins to ANY democrat is even worse than if we were to have another GWB in office next term.

Not only that, I think congress is going to get spanked; but the reps will still hold a (thin) majority in both houses this midterm. If that happens, I’m willing to bet that a lot of congresscritters will newly descover the religion of restraint.

And no, I will never vote for a democratic president again, so long as the democratic party remotely resembles what it does today; because not only do you get a president, but you get a whole administration and executive branch.

What do I mean by that? Well the damage Bill Clinton did in his 8 years is utterly phenomenal if you’ve seen it from the inside. Because its all “inside baseball” stuff the general public doesnt see it, but I think a democratic president and republican congress would do more FAR more damage than a democratic congress would do with a republican president.

The problem isn’t the president, it’s the folks the President and his party appoint to the administration who truly believe in statism, socialism, and democratic political opportunism.

Although people always think of executive power, they don’t really understand what it means.

In legislative matters the president in not very much more than a figurehead; but when it comes to executive matters; basically the execution and enforcement of that legislation, and of the beurocracy of running the country; the president, and more improtantly the presidents party, is supreme.

I mean that literally in that the supreme court and congress can’t easily strike down what are called “adminsitrative procedures”; basically the means by which the executive departments choose to go about their business; even if those procedures might violate the law, or in some ways the constitution. Nor can they interefere with most appointments and promotions.

It’s a separation of powers issue, and it has been a HUGE sticking point recently for the ATF and congress, as well as the IRS.

Whether Clinton did anything or not due to gridlock, the damage his adminsitration did to the country as a whole through the civil service and executive beurocracy was ENORMOUS.

I myself was a junior officer in the Air Force, and I decided it was better that I take a buyout package, than continue serving under that president while he was so busy dismantling my service. I personally know of hundreds just like me who made the same choice, and there were literaly thousands more. In fact well over a hundred thousand more. People with 2 to 10 years of service who simply gave up on serving while under Clinton, because he made it that bad.

Those men would now be Majors through Colonels (promotable to general), and Sergeants first class through master sergeants (promotable to sergeants major).

These are the ranks within the military that truly get things done. They are also the ranks that have slots unfilled across the board in the combat arms fields (the loggies and supply guys are as always filled with career minded folks clogging up the middle ranks, but they dont have enough good people either).

You can’t build a sergeant major in less than 15 years. You can’t have a regiment or a brigade function well without a good sergeant major, and some good first sergeants. You can’t build a general in less than 20 years, or a colonel in less than 15 (and 15 is really pushing it); and you damn well can’t have a good brigade without a good brigade commander.

So there are literally thousands of men who would be Colonels, Generals, Sergeants Major, and Master Sergeants (not to mention the mid grades) right now if it weren’t for Clinton.

Eric is one of them in fact. So is Combat Controller (a frequent commenter). So are a whole hell of a lot of my friends, commentors, and co-bloggers. Heck I’d be right on the edge of Major myself (I made it to Captain in the reserves).

We can’t get those men back; they are needed, and we can’t replace them. That is only one small portion of the damage Clinton did to this country.

Then there’s all those decisions made in the executive departments by appointed functionaries. Every day they were building our government up, and tearing our citizens down.

Right now, 14 years later, these people appointed to low and mid level positions during Clinton, are taking that ideological view, and uing it to run our country into the ground. In particualr they are using it to push the government into near open war against it’s elected masters.

No, I will never again vote for another democrat.

Chris Byrne
I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com

Why Did I Vote For You?

Constitution, Economics, Politics

I just finished reading Impostor, Bruce Bartlett’s book slamming President Bush for failing to live up to anything resembling conservatism. When I first heard about the book, I worried a bit whether Bartlett was just breaking ranks to sell books. If you’re worried about the same, don’t be. Bartlett’s ire for Bush comes through loud and clear, and it is certainly heartfelt.

The book, coupled with Bush’s speech yesterday on “price gouging”, followed by yet another toothless veto threat, made me ask why I bothered to vote for him in the first place. I once had an answer for that. I began blogging days after the 2004 election, and when Britian’s Daily Mirror asked “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?”, I answered:

Why doesn’t the rest of the world understand that we have weighed the evidence, considered our options, and perhaps 59,054,087 intelligent, rational adults decided that reelecting George W. Bush was the best option we had?

In this election, we were faced with one very serious question. All others fell by the wayside. The question: Should we stand up and fight for what we thought was right in this world, or sit back with our “allies” and watch the threat grow?

I still believe today that given our external threats, Bush was the best candidate for dealing with those threats. I don’t believe that John Kerry would have been able to stand firm in the face of the world, to do what I believe is the right thing in the war on terror. Bush can do that. But he sure has bungled up everything else.

Actually, I shouldn’t completely say that. Bush did cut taxes, and I love tax cuts. But he missed the boat. Tax cuts, coupled with huge entitlement spending increases, is economic insanity. I’ve said before that I’m a supply-sider. I know that lower taxes spur economic growth, which will eventually raise more revenue for government. But at what point do huge deficits and skyrocketing entitlement spending turn into huge debt, requiring either inflation or a major tax increase to pay off?

Let’s run down the laundry list of what Bush has done to screw up so far:

  • Signed a blatantly unconstitutional campaign finance bill
  • Increased federal government intrusion into education— without corresponding improvements like vouchers
  • Created a bloated new medicare drug entitlement— all the while hiding its true estimated costs
  • Threatened veto after veto, without following through on a single one
  • Comported his entire administration as if it were a monarchy
  • Supported the Patriot Act & domestic wiretapping— dramatically increasing the police power of the state
  • Failed to respond to Katrina, one of the greatest natural disasters in recent history
  • Imprisoned Americans without trial, counsel, judicial oversight, or even a hearing

That’s not even addressing Iraq, which is a whole different debate.

As Bartlett points out, Bush is the “conservative” president who said “We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move.”

Contrast that with Ronald Reagan: “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

George W. Bush has been described as a “big-government conservative”. Bush’s idea of government is that it doesn’t work, except when he’s holding the reins. His presidency, however, is better described by PJ O’Rourke: “The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.”

Bush could have been defeated in 2004. In many ways, I wish he would have. Not by Kerry, of course. I don’t see how the Democrats could have their fingers so far from the pulse that they nominated so uncharismatic and vacillating that he couldn’t beat a weak Bush. If the Democrats had nominated someone who had come out with an understanding of at least finishing the job in Iraq, I would have voted for him.

With a pro-war Democrat in office, we might have had a chance at Bush’s only redeeming quality, coupled with the best feature of Clinton’s final 6 years: gridlock. We might have seen the Republican Congress start acting like Republicans, fighting spending. Instead, we’ve been stuck with a Congress who wants to send pork back home, coupled with a president too scared to rebuke members of his own party. Republicans have all three branches of government locked up, and they spend their time trying to act like Democrats. What’s worse? They have such little experience administering and creating welfare programs, that they’ve screwed up every attempt at doing so (i.e. Medicare Part D). It’s gotten so bad, that I DON’T EVEN WANT Social Security privatization if it comes from this batch of Republicans, because I know they’ll be serving the needs of investment bankers, not me.

The last several years have seen complete mismanagement of government. Just as PJ O’Rourke predicted. 2006 and 2008 are going to be a big wake-up call for the Republican party, and I, for one, think it’s about damn time.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

New Orleans Elections Liveblogging

Politics

Welcome to the New Orleans municipal elections liveblogging. Normally, most people wouldn’t care about the elections in the city of New Orleans. However, that changed on August 29, 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. That, combined with the incompetance of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Orleans Parish Leeve Board, led to the destruction of nearly 80% of the city by flooding. Ever since then, the city has been in the national spotlight, this election is no different.

First of all, the turnout has been described as steady all day in most precincts. The absentee vote, while much higher than the last election in 2002, has been described as lower than expected. In addition, by all accounts, most attempts to bus evacuees back home were not successful.

The most watched race is the obviously the mayor’s race. The four major contenders are Mayor Ray Nagin, Lieutenant GovernorMitch Landrieu, businessman Ron Forman, and lawyer Rob Couhig (whom I’m supporting, although I do not live in New Orleans). I cannot even begin to guess who will be in the runoff because there are no reliable polls and no reliable estimates of how many people live in New Orleans.

The other races I’m watching are the City Council races. There are many corrupt and incompetant incumbants who need to be replaced if New Orleans will ever recover from Katrina. In addition, I will be watching the seven (that’s not a typo) assessor races to determine if there is any support for reforming the corrupt system of assessing property taxes in New Orleans. In the assessor races, there is a group of candidates running under something called the IQ Ticket (which stands for “I Quit”) whose platform is calling for all assessors to quit and give their salaries to hiring a professional assessment firm to do assessments and to support consolidating the seven assessor positions into one. These races are just as important as the mayor’s race.

So sit back and relax because the show really begins at 8PM Central when the polls close. I will be flipping back and forth between New Orleans’s four broadcast networks to give you the best election news I can.

8PM: Polls closed in New Orleans. WWL-TV is reporting about 50% turnout citywide.

8:05 PM: No results yet.

8:15 PM: Still no results. Normally in a Louisiana election, results start coming immediately.

8:21 PM: First results from two precincts being reported by WVUE-TV: Ron Forman in the lead with Mitch Landrieu in second. The precincts are in Lakeview, a white Republican conservative middle class stronghold.

8:26 PM: With three precincts in, Ray Nagin is now in the lead with Ron Forman in second.

8:33 PM: The precincts reporting in now are mostly black and went against Nagin in 2002. This time around, Nagin is doing much better in those precincts and the threat of Tom Watson and Mitch Landrieu to siphon off black votes is apparently not materializing right now. Nagin is back in the lead with Landrieu coming in second with eight precincts reporting.

8:39 PM: Secretary of State Al Ater is holding a press conference. I’m going to hold off on posting more results until many more precincts come in. Ater is calling the election a success with only one technical problem, a polling station that lost power for 30 minutes.

8:45 PM: In the Council at Large race, a pattern is developing where the only major contenders are incumbant Oliver Thomas, Councilwoman for District C Jacquelyn Clarkson, and former New Orleans Saints executive Arnie Fielkow.

8:52 PM: First mega-precinct expected shortly, from New Orleans East.

8:55 PM: Rob Couhig is only at 14% with 8% precincts in. However, Landrieu, Nagin, and Forman are polling around at 27-26%. Couhig must make up this deficit in Algiers and Lakeview or he’s finished.

9:01 PM: I’m noticing another disturbing trend in the City Council and Assessor races, the incumbants are either winning or in position to go into the runoff.

9:11 PM: With 78% of the precincts in at City Council District E (New Orleans East), incumbant Cynthia Willard-Lewis is leading with over 60% of the vote. I think we can safely call this one for the incumbant with no runoff.

9:20 PM: WWL-TV is doing a report on the demographic breakdown of the precincts. Basically, Ron Forman is not doing well in his base in Uptown (which is being won by Mitch Landrieu). Ray Nagin is winning in the flooded areas and 66% of the black vote. However, Rob Couhig’s base in Algiers and Lakeview is not reporting in yet. Forman and Landrieu are battling for the white vote in Uptown and the one precinct in Lakeview that has reported in.

9:30 PM: With one-third of the precincts in, it’s looking like that Ray Nagin and Mitch Landrieu are beginning to pull away from Ron Forman and Rob Couhig. Couhig is hurting Forman among whites, but it’s not Couhig’s fault that Forman was such a horrible candidate.

9:32 PM: Correction about the District E race, only 16% of precincts are in.

9:38 PM: It’s looking that an IQ candidate is going to be victorious tonight, in Assessor District 6, IQ candidate Nancy Marshall is leading the race with 55% with 84% of precincts in.

9:44 PM: First race officially called. Civil District Clerk of Court Dale Atkins has been reelected with 82%.

9:51 PM: Nagin and Landrieu continue to pull away with 59% of the precincts.

9:52 PM: WWL-TV is calling the mayor’s race. Mayor Ray Nagin and Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu are going to be in the runoff. It’s an open question whether or not Couhig’s and Forman’s numbers combined would have made a difference.

9:58 PM: Both Criminal and Civil Sherrif races have been called with the incumbants winning overwhelming victories in both cases.

10:01 PM: Council District A race has been called with Councilman Jay Batt and challenger Shelley Medura going into a runoff.

10:06 PM: Claude Mauberret, who’s family has held the 2nd District Assessorship for over 100 years has won election.

10:10 PM: Oliver Thomas has won his Council at Large seat outright. Arnie Fielkow and Jacquelyn Clarkson will be going into runoff for the second at large seat.

10:12 PM: Incumbant District 3 Assessor Erroll Williams has won reelection. As has District 7 Assessor Henry Heaton.

10:14 PM: Ron Forman has conceded defeat.

10:15 PM: City Council District B race is going into a runoff. Incumbant Reene Gill Pratt and challenger Stacy Head are going to faceoff in the runoff.

10:21 PM: City Councilwomen Cynthia Hedge-Morrell (District D) and Cynthia Willard-Lewis (District E) have won reelection. At this point, Rob Couhig’s and Ron Forman’s combined vote of 27% would not have been enough to get in to the runoff. Mitch Landrieu has 29% and Ray Nagin has 38%.

10:34 PM: Nagin is speaking…and gloating.

10:39 PM: I’ll go ahead and call the District 5 Assessor’s race for the incumbant in that race, Tom Arnold.

10:47 PM: I’m not even going to even bother finishing liveblogging. The corrupt and incompetant New Orleans status quo has won and won big tonight. Most incumbants have been reelected or are going into the runoff. Mitch Landrieu is no real alternative to Ray Nagin. New Orleans has sealed its own fate tonight, which is going to go down as the worst night since August 29, 2005. May God help us all.

Kevin Boyd
I’m one of the original co-founders of The Liberty Papers all the way back in 2005. Since then, I wound up doing this blogging thing professionally. Now I’m running the site now. You can find my other work at The Hayride.com and Rare. You can also find me over at the R Street Institute.
https://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/

Quotes from Reagan

Politics

Ronald Reagan had a way of asking important questions in ways that people understood. Here’s three on the government’s power to tax.

Are you entitled to the fruits of your labor or does government have some presumptive right to spend and spend and spend?

Clearly George W. Bush has not listening to the Reagan/Goldwater wing of the Republican Party. Just because he cut taxes doesn’t mean we don’t have to pay for the spending. It just means we are deferring pay for it to another day.

Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? … Today in our country the tax collector’s share is 37 cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.

Don’t you ever wonder why the actually wealthy folks in this country don’t want to get rid of progressive taxation?

The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.

The best one sentence summation of the Federal government from 1936 to the present I’ve ever read!

Eric
Security executive, work for Core Security, veteran, kids, dogs, cat, chickens, mortgage, bills. I like #liberty #InfoSec #scotch, #wine, #cigars, #travel, #baseball
http://www.securitycigarsfud.com/

Where Markets Beat Government — and Vice Versa

Economics, Education, Monopolies, Politics

I checked out Perry’s site the other day, and ran across this post on Wal-Mart. It looks like Wal-Mart is opening its doors again in New Orleans, while Congress is still pointing fingers. It got me thinking: why is it that we see for-profit businesses flocking to the area, while FEMA is still trying to figure out where to park their beautiful trailers?

I originally wanted to issue a snark-filled rant on why government is inefficient, bloated, and ineffectual. But this, combined with Massachusetts’ insanity, calls for something a little better. I’m not an anarcho-capitalist. I realize that there are places where government can get necessary things done that the market cannot. It is only when we ask it to do things it is not suited for that we run into problems.

Bear in mind, this is an off-the-cuff treatise, so I welcome comments pointing out all the places I am wrong.

I see there being a few major types of services provided by the government and markets:

1. Distributed provider, distributed user: This would fit the mold of most day-to-day interactions. When you go to buy lunch, you have a wide range of choices. Purveyors of those products can sell to anybody; there are few long-term interactions.

2. Single-provider, distributed user: This would fit things such as roads, sewers, police, military, courts, etc. In these types of interactions, there action between the provider and the user is often severed. In the case of roads/sewers/etc, it is common that an individual homeowner or driver could not contract with a provider to build a new sewer system or road to service them. Often, maintenance of these services are paid for by some sort of taxation, and only occasionally by a true “user fee” arrangement. Courts, police, and military are even more so, because there is not often a true link between what police or courts do for those who aren’t currently the victim or perpetrators of crimes, but they offer a sort of “blanket of protection” for everyone. Again, the link is fairly severed between provider and user.

3. Specialty provider, specific user: This is a tough category. In this, I place things such as medical care, which often is difficult to procure in a true competitive environment (outside of general-practitioner care), and is highly tailored to the specific user. There may be 3 hospitals in a close area, but only one specialist in the field you need. This may also include education and other services, where the relationship between a specific provider and user is difficult to break. For example, when you put your child into a school, you don’t want to have to change that school without good reason, because of the relationships your child generates with classmates/teachers/etc. Last, it includes such things as insurance, where acute costs are very high and risk may need to be pooled.

—————————————————

The first case is a place where markets always beat government, hands down. Government action, nearly by definition, is one of monopoly, and monopolies are known for poor efficiency. They don’t innovate to serve their customers, they don’t bring costs down through competition, and they have no reason to do either. This one is so obvious that it needs no further discussion.

The second case is the poster child for government action. This is the one agreed upon by everyone except the anarcho-capitalists. There is a little point of distinction on things like roads (the “pure” libertarian will ask for them to be privatized), but I’m going to gloss over that. I chose sewers but left out other utilities for a reason, as well. Without getting too heavily into it, there are certain “common carrier” services that form a bit of a gray area. Electrical or gas service doesn’t lend itself quite to competition very well, due to the extremely high infrastructure costs in service. Georgia’s take on natural gas, however, is one where the actual distribution of gas is centralized, but you have your choice of “service company” to sell you that gas. It blends some of the benefits of competition without the drawback of requiring multiple companies to lay redundant infrastructure. But in most “common carrier” utilities, some sort of government action is required, as local government is typically granting monopolistic licenses to providers. The cases of courts, police, and military, however, are specialized enough where we leave government to provide these directly. This is the one case where we grant a monopoly on initiating force, and choose to keep that power in the hands of government we control with our vote.

So I think we can all agree that communist Russia showed us how dangerous it is to let the first case be provided solely by government. And I think we can look post-communist Russia to see how lack of infrastructure and legitimate courts/police/military to protect the rule of law will lead to anarchy and rule by the strong.

But the third case is problematic. This is a case where it is easy for politicians to advocate government action, and easy to dupe unsuspecting voters into agreeing to it. Usually, they play to emotions. It is always hard to watch people go without adequate medical care or education. It is far too easy to go from watching this to thinking that it simply shouldn’t happen, and therefore the government should take over and provide the service. But while this is different than the first case, it is still not a place where government monopoly works. Our current educational system is evidence of that. In the case of medical care, nobody wants to see people lose their entire livelihood due to high medical costs. But the proper way to pool risk is with insurance. Just as we would not ask the government to provide flood insurance, car insurance, or homeowners insurance, medical insurance is not for the government to pay. It would help, of course, for the government to end its policies which make it nearly impossible for individuals to provide their own coverage reasonably cheaply, but that’s a whole different debate. Again, look at education. Education would be much better provided in this country if we returned to a competitive market, with parents paying for school directly, and (at best) a safety-net program to help the poor. When even the NYT is realizing that vouchers work, it is obvious that we need to change our strategies.

As I said, there are times when government action is the best way to get something done. Those cases are few and far between, and in all of them I suggest making the services controlled as locally as possible, to allow a “market in governments” to form. Just as people choose which business to patronize, and should be able to choose which school to patronize, the experience of federalism and local control allow people to choose which local government to patronize. This will allow people to choose local government based upon the ability of government to provide necessary services, and allow competing localities to learn through competition how to be more efficient. You can ask states like Massachusetts (the only state in the union to lose gross population year-to-year) just how important this is.

But where government action is not efficient (almost everywhere), we need to make sure our policies are designed to facilitate the working of a market, not impede it.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/
1 … 281 282 283 284 285 286